SEA ICE VANISHING? - Only for the people that get their "science" from the "D" science student Al Gore. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/ Case Closed.

StoneTools - June 28, 2013, 10:01 am

Wow! Me likey!

Capt. Morgan - January 29, 2013, 2:44 am

An interesting Olive Branch with wiggle room for both. But here is a hint - an article that will show you how to win over the folks open to persuasion: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/Ridley-Ten-Tests.pdf

Rudedog - January 27, 2013, 11:25 pm

Capt, lets end this. We both agree that global warming is occurring and that human activity maybe exacerbating a normal cyclical event. Fair enough?

Rudedog - January 27, 2013, 7:42 pm

Sorry, double hit

Rudedog - January 27, 2013, 7:41 pm

I thought you agreed that the earth has been warming over the last century.

Rudedog - January 27, 2013, 7:37 pm

I thought you agreed that the earth has been warming over the last century.

APPARENTLY THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED - Former NASA scientists and astronauts send letter to NASA Administrator "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

GLOBAL WARMING - Just gets worse and worse doesn't it?

Science doesn't lie -

fauxnews - July 2, 2014, 12:28 pm

He'd have to have one to lose one, Zeitguy. It's more like, a speaking from experience kind of thing. I.E. Projecting. You know? lol

Zeitguy - July 2, 2014, 11:23 am

Sociopaths? Exactly when did you lose your mind?

fauxnews - July 1, 2014, 6:27 pm

What the science says: Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. SO2 from volcanos is not cooling the Earth because the warming effect produced by man far outweighs it.

fauxnews - July 1, 2014, 6:20 pm

Debunked Climate Myth: Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.Human additions of CO2 must be taken into perspective.Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10000 to the atmosphere.One volcanic cough can do this in a day.(Myth)

OTC - July 1, 2014, 4:00 pm

Volcano activity was almost void in the first half of the twentieth century, without smoke,ash, and SO2 being released in the air it allowed more sun light to heat up the earth. Now that volcanoes are more active they are creating a sun screen (cooling)

EmmaRoydes - July 1, 2014, 12:16 pm

EmmaRoydes - July 1, 2014, 12:15 pm

How about not relying on fake data from NASA anymore? You can do a search for NASA fudging data and will find many, many hits, but none of them on libtard "news" sites. Funny that they don't consider newsworthy anything that doesn't support the liberal

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 2:20 pm

...if you don't like what you see, then stop looking in the mirror (because whatever views you share with Esk would make anyone feel ugly on some level...it certainly explains your unconscious need to project your anger onto my posters). Nuff said. Cheers

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 2:18 pm

You jumped on my poster about a whackjob advocating capital punishment against g ays and started making ridiculous arguments about Sharia laws amongst other things instead of showing empathy toward Esk's victims of his hate speech...

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 2:16 pm

...that would like me making a scientific argument against American healthcare by quoting something Dr.McCoy said. I'm not making fun of the religion. I'm making fun of 'nutjobs' like Scott Esk using religion to justify murder against lawabiding citizens.

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 2:14 pm

http://www.politifake.org/its-strange-man-made-global-warming-politics-54214.html FTL You compared superstition (the Xtian hoax that an undead Jewish man walked on water, etc.) to science and dared to make fun of man-made GW with religion...

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 2:13 pm

http://www.politifake.org/its-strange-man-made-global-warming-politics-54214.html FTL You compared superstition (the Xtian hoax that an undead Jewish man walked on water, etc.) to science and dared to make fun of man-made GW with religion...

OTC - June 16, 2014, 2:02 pm

And finding one nut job you categorize all as being the same. a lot of the Old Testament changed with Christ, such as stoning as you pointed out

OTC - June 16, 2014, 1:58 pm

Thanks for proving my point, even the poster you cited states "man-made" GW, & I stated recently GW isn't a hoax but man-made GW is. liberals even contradict themselves by saying man is contributing to GW, if its truly man made wouldn't man be causing it?

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 1:13 pm

...that said, that has nothing to do with me calling you out for your hatred of all things scientific and rational. Speaking of "comprehension" issues: you call GW a hoax and then mocks other for not believing in the literal Christ (a hoax).How ironic X-D

fauxnews - June 16, 2014, 1:11 pm

Nah, I dig Xtianity. It has a great message of love and tolerance and it's a cool story. No hate at all. I just don't believe (a) that is REALLY happened (I don't take it literally and (b) I find it offensive with others use it to oppress/hurt innocents

OTC - June 16, 2014, 12:29 pm

Glad you know what my beliefs are, especially since you seem to have a problem comprehending, and thanks for not bringing up any hatred in your posts, shows how tolerant the other side is

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 11:33 pm

I was being sarcastic. Thanx for taking the bait. NEWSFLASH: He didn't walk on water 'before' being crucified either (unless you can provide scientific evidence otherwise). Hint: He also never rose from the dead ;-) ...and the X-men still aren't real too.

OTC - June 15, 2014, 11:04 pm

He didn't walk on water after being crucified, you're wrong again

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 9:15 pm

...still waiting for your scientific evidence that undead Xtians can walk on water after being crucified (since all the evidence for man-made climate changes is so 'ridiculous' after all). Was Jesus one the X-men? Hint: *they don't exist either* ;-)

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 9:13 pm

OTC, you believe it's okay to stone-to-death law-abiding American citizens because your warped interpretation of the bible says so...yet you think Obamacare is too intrusive (and a form of tyranny) against your people? Oh, the irony...

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 9:05 pm

Here you go, OTC. Another link to get your back. I think Saddam hid the WMDs where the govt is hiding Bigfoot. From the same 'tabloid' source you used, The Examiner. X-D Enjoy... http://www.examiner.com/article/bigfoot-structures

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 9:03 pm

Translation (OTC): I don't make sense when I'm angry...neither does my poor attempt to parody, Faux. Doesn't help I possess a mind that believes there is more proof for Adam & Eve than the effect upon massive manmade pollution upon the environment.

OTC - June 15, 2014, 8:21 pm

Ironic translation: I don't believe what the Bible says about rising from the dead or walking on water, but I'll make politifake posters defending what the Bible says

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 4:05 pm

Again, with the "nothing" scientific. You should work on actually saying "something" scientific.

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 3:27 pm

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 3:26 pm

Sure...and your belief that "the GW 'hoax' is more ridiculous than the idea a man walked on water and came back from the dead" is 'less' motivated politically. Sorry, but undead Xtian zombies with superpowers unbacked by science vs. GW backed by facts FTW

fauxnews - June 15, 2014, 3:23 pm

This from a guy who thinks that a middle-Eastern man walked on water and came back from the dead after being crucified. Yeah, the science proving that is undeniable, OTC.

OTC - June 15, 2014, 12:19 pm

Not as much as Natural Cycle Global Warming deniers.

Zeitguy - June 15, 2014, 10:49 am

It certainly seems apparent that global warming deniers are more motivated by political agenda.

Zeitguy - June 15, 2014, 10:03 am

JGalt - June 15, 2014, 12:04 am

agree with their political agenda of control.

JGalt - June 15, 2014, 12:04 am

anyone who has ever looked at solar activity charts and earth temperature readings can see the correlation of sun spot activity vs earth weather pattersn. Yet those who worship the Goreanderthal religion are used to discarding facts and data that do not

JGalt - June 15, 2014, 12:02 am

you are missing the point. GW panic is about control and not about big oil. Its also about not funding the likes of carbon tax credit moguls pandering to the Gore-anderthals of Global warm- er, climate-chan-er weather patterns.

JGalt - June 14, 2014, 11:59 pm

Uhm, last time I checked the definition of ph**osynthesis, CO2 is converted to O2. CO2 is plant food. Try taking some science classes before showing such a lack of understanding

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 10:33 pm

Rarely are we able to witness evolution, quantum physics, relativity, and electromagnetism first hand but we accept and use these theories without question.

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 10:22 pm

Scientific theory is all about circumstantial evidence. And that evidence suggests a cause and effect relationship.

OTC - June 14, 2014, 3:44 pm

"Manmade CO2 is contributing ..." which means to 'contribute', GW would have to already exist and that started how, exactly?

OTC - June 14, 2014, 3:40 pm

Don't eat yellow salt

EmmaRoydes - June 14, 2014, 2:00 pm

humongous drop in temperature.

EmmaRoydes - June 14, 2014, 2:00 pm

Using a simple, publically-available, climate model emulator called MAGICC, complete adoption and adherence to the EPA’s new carbon dioxide restrictions, the temperature would drop by 0.0018 C by 2100. So let's hurry up and bankrupt the world to get that

OTC - June 14, 2014, 12:14 pm

So if you're at a bank when its robbed you should be arrested since circumstantial evidence shows you were there at the time of the crime

EmmaRoydes - June 14, 2014, 8:32 am

oops, it's from 1991 and converted to a pdf in 2005. "It supports, but doesn't prove the direct solar influence on global temperature"

EmmaRoydes - June 14, 2014, 8:27 am

This article is from 2004, but it's interesting anyways: ftp://ftp.spacecenter.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Friis-Christensen1991(Sun-climate).pdf

EmmaRoydes - June 14, 2014, 8:26 am

It's not just the sunspot activity, you have to also include the sun's irradiance and the corresponding periods of warming and cooling of the oceans. I don't think it can be a coincidence.

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 12:42 am

This conversation is reminiscent of Bill Nye the science guy debating Ken Ham the creationist guy. Just saying.

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 12:30 am

I do. Albeit circumstantial .

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 12:29 am

Your argument is based on that which " could be " but lacking in " that which is most probable". You have no theory until you have evidence to support your claims.

OTC - June 14, 2014, 12:19 am

And the earth's orbit, whether circular or elliptical

OTC - June 14, 2014, 12:16 am

Contributing isn't causing so its not man made anymore than contributing to a charity caused that charity to exist. Global warming is a pre-existing condition, obamacare will take care of it

Zeitguy - June 14, 2014, 12:15 am

Sunspot activity cycles once every 11 years, the wobble affect of earths rotational axis cycles every 2015 years which may be related to the polar magnetic shift that is illustrated in basaltic magma flows of the mid Atlantic ridge.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:59 pm

that site has a list of volcanoes that erupted in 2013. 2014 is listed in http://earthquake-report.com/2013/05/27/wordwide-volcano-activity-copahue-volcano-chile-alert-raised-to-red/

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:57 pm

How is present volcanic activity not to blame? Out of an estimated 1,500 active volcanoes, 50 or so erupt every year, spewing steam, ash, toxic gases, and lava. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/12/2013-the-year-in-volcanic-activity/100645/

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:53 pm

Circumstantial evidence isn't science, is it?

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:51 pm

there is also sunspot activity, the natural cycles of the earth, the shifting poles, and so many other things that are beyond our control.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:49 pm

Evidence is always changing. You climate nazis claimed that the melting of the ice caps was proof of man made global warming. Yet recent evidence shows subglacial volcanoes and geothermal h'ot spots are responsible. Nice try.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:44 pm

If I take a leak in the ocean, what effect have I made on the salt content of the ocean?

Zeitguy - June 13, 2014, 10:41 pm

Deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels over the last century may consider one to raise an eyebrow.

Zeitguy - June 13, 2014, 10:39 pm

But since present volcanic activity is not to blame, and no recent impacts have occurred one is left to consider other sources of increased green house gases.

Zeitguy - June 13, 2014, 10:35 pm

Well certainly its only circumstantial evidence that would support the theory that human activity is contributing to the present warming trend.

OTC - June 13, 2014, 10:06 pm

Global warming isn't a myth, man-made global warming is

Zeitguy - June 13, 2014, 10:04 pm

Emma thanks for your response. Just to clarify are supporting the belief that global warming is a myth created by the left to undermine big oil companies, lobbyists, and those in congress with non renewable energy money funding their careers?

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 2:21 pm

well in the Climate Nazi Party

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 2:21 pm

BTW Faux, did you see that Dr. Caleb Rossiter - an adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC - has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubt about man-made global warming. Sounds like McCarthyism is alive and

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 2:16 pm

In other words, your comment says nothing.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 2:16 pm

I didn't say it was all of the GW Nazi arguments, I said it was the mainstay. That one fell, science will eventually destroy the other GW arguments as well.

fauxnews - June 13, 2014, 1:37 pm

...and man-made CO2, which stays trapped in the atmosphere for many, many, many, MANY years ADDS TO (and exacerbates the effect). That's the problem. You said nothing. It doesn't disprove the causal link, which is still evident and supported by the facts.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:33 am

*GW*

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:32 am

and the GSW crowd doesn't see the irony.

EmmaRoydes - June 13, 2014, 11:28 am

One of the mainstays of the Manmade Climate Change Nazis is the melting of the polar ice caps. Turns out that there are volcanoes and geothermal h** spots under the ice caps that are responsible for the melting. Science betrays science.

Zeitguy - June 13, 2014, 2:55 am

Always amazed at the division that the theory of global warming evokes. It's like the debate concerning abortion in its emotional response except it's supported by scientific process and thereby exempt of moral and political dismissal.

calron - April 25, 2015, 9:29 pm

I've seen worse, Ala 62039. Being fired for pointing out AGW junk science.

OTC - April 25, 2015, 6:19 pm

You're wrong again, "activist" scientists, not scientists. Activist scientists have been caught drawing conclusions before doing the research, its not that hard to follow along.

calron - April 25, 2015, 5:00 pm

What's really bad is that natural variability could be used to support AGW, but some shout denier whenever you bring it up as a cause for warming.

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 4:48 pm

As long as it annoys Rebecca, it is worth it to me. X-D It's the only thing keeping me going, mate. :-) F*ck carrots and gum.

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:48 pm

Like when Rush Limbaugh lied this week about the Duke study. The authors of that study actually came out against him because the political media does this all of the time. That is scientists up in arm over being exploited in a non-debate

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:46 pm

By now, it's common sense knowledge in the world of academia that climatology firmly supports the theory of MMCC. The scientific community is not at odds over this. It's the public that is on the fence. Talking about it too much distracts from the issue

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm

Don't really care about any of that. If or when the media is wrong about MMCC, doesn't change the fact that the science community is firmly behind MMCC in both consensus and findings.

calron - April 25, 2015, 2:39 pm

Roughly 1.59% of the abstracts reach the conclusion that he says the majority agrees with. That's not in the ballpark. If he chose a different standard to measure the consensus, he could have got the 97.1%.

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:33 pm

the scientists will just get each other's back like some country club. That's absurd. That's not what peer review means. On this issue, there has been enough fact checking that this bias would've been revealed by the present.

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:31 pm

It would appear Faux is talking about peer-reviewed journals about climate change, not the consensus. Roughly speaking, virtually all of them ARE behind the MMCC theory. OTC's problem is he thinks peer review is biased because

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:27 pm

Cook is guilty of being sloppy, not being debunked. Roughly speaking, he was in the ball park. Again you are splitting hairs hun. Peer review has caught it. It's just not a big enough issue to matter. Climatology isn't up in arms over this for good reason

calron - April 25, 2015, 2:24 pm

I've red a few and this is not necessary true. Take Cook's census for example. It reaches a conclusion that is debunked by Cook's own numbers rather than reaching the conclusion supported by the numbers. Peer review should catch it, but it still happens.

OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:34 pm

Like the past 2 years of unusual cool climate is suddenly "just weather". Anyways, have a good weekend and break that cig habit, you're more amusing nicotine free :-)

OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:31 pm

*Sigh* Perhaps you missed my posts stating that I don't deny human impact (contributing), I'm fully aware of MMCO2 but I do deny it's the sole driver of current trends in CC. And I notice anything to the contrary of MMCC is not welcomed

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:23 am

Alrighty then. Off to start my weekend. A night of me designated driving for my friends while others get drunk :-/ WEEEEE! Anyhow, fun jousting with you mate. Let's do it again next week if the spirit moves us, OTC. Cheers. :-) Fox is off the air.

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:20 am

P.S. Don't think I didn't notice you abandoning your cosmic ray Henrik denier theory. ;-) Is science like a crap shoot for you? One of these days do you just hope to roll the dice 'just right' and find a random link that will finally pay off? X-D

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am

The only Quote from that article that matters - "It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century." #PWNEDYOURSELF

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am

Even you admit, in your game of pigeon chess, that they are not removing the human element. You're grasping for straws - everything else you said is irrelevant in light of that concession.

OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:10 am

OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:08 am

Well even this states it doesn't. remove the human equation, but the climate models didn't predict a cooling and that has them confused, which is funny because not everything was used in the models because scientists didn't think it was significant

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm

...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm

...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:15 pm

...I think, sometimes, you are confusing the political conclusions drawn by the liberal crowd which I agree are conflated.However,the peer-reviewed journals simply say:MMCC is unequivocal.They do not endorse the dire predictions of Al Gore or the libs...

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:13 pm

...in that sense, we've always been in agreement. The libs, as badly as the GOPers, have dragged the science dialogue into the political gutter. And the libs have their own denier issue to deal with -- the anti-vaccination movement...

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:08 pm

...The scientists are just reporting their findings. How long and how bad MMCC will affect the planet is up for conjecture.All they can claim is it's happening and a serious issue.It's not meant to be a crystal ball about next years temps or Superbowl win

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:06 pm

P.S. Before you go down another rabbit hole, I can save you the trouble: all the consensus says about MMCC is that it is unequivocal.It doesnt claim to predict everything. It doesnt claim it will be the end of the world.The lib politicians are doing that

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 8:56 pm

Source? I think I'm sure about what you are speaking about. But with you, I can never be sure. ;-) Provide a citation, please. And yes, the MMCC debate ended more or less many years ago. It's not confusing for the scientists, just the quacks.

OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:51 pm

If the debate on MMCC is over, then why is there a global temperature conundrum that scientists plan to address this fall? I thought it was settled.

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:20 pm

...except Scientology. You can judge Scientology. X-D

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:19 pm

Scientology was created in the 20th century by a science fiction author. An awful science fiction author. Religion of any kind holds us back. But none of us has the right to judge the other - Be you Xtian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic Atheist...etc

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:15 pm

I actually respect religion even if I don't believe in God. I just don't respect fundamentalism. If you want to pick on a religion of liberal geeks, pick on Scientology. It has "science" in the title, at least. It is a liberal tard fest. X-D

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:13 pm

The science on MMCC is simply a report on the findings. Whatever problem you have with the politics of it comes with your own philosophical problem with how science works, which a**umes a theocratic pov as the inverse since you are making this about faith

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:09 pm

And by "theocratic", what I mean by that is - again, it's revealed when you overplayed your hand with your philosophical problem with science: Science doesn't pretend to be infallible. That is what religion is for. Science isn't a religion for geeks.

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:53 pm

No, becca. Coffee. Lots and lots of coffee :-/ They have Taco Bell Mountain Dew Baja Blast in the can now for a limited time! :-D Now I dont have to sneak my McDonald's cup into there and steal it. X-D I can get my caffeine fix from the convenience store.

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:51 pm

You have such unreasonable distrust toward science,wildly a**uming political bias everywhere you can.Yet you haven't a skeptical bone in your body over secular Christian ideology,which is rife with politics? You have a theocratic agenda on MMCC, mate(2/2)

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:41 pm

It proves you are more than a simple contrarian. It proves you are delusional, mate. :-/ Your problem isn't with MMCC. Your problem is with science, and how it works. And your issue with it is a purely philosophical one.(1/2)

rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:29 pm

You're actually on top of things for a change.Not that obliterating OTC's argument is rocket science.Regular science would do - something he doesnt comprehend.But a coherent argument from you,Faux? You must've remembered your nicotine gum this morning :)

rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:21 pm

"when the facts show it is wrong following a proper scientific inquiry,which already demonstrated human-induced CC was unequivocal." Finishing that sentence for you,denier :) Know you wanted to imply politics or bias was behind the rejection.Not today hun

OTC - April 24, 2015, 11:37 am

I didn't state that he disproved MMCC. But this does prove that research that finds reasons for CC other than humans is rejected.

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:23 am

And how does your idiotic anecdotal observations about weather counter my thorough refutation of Henrik? The man YOU CITED as DISPROVING MMCC?? Oh yeah,it doesn't because you can't - hence this LAME red-herring, Im sorry, I meant 'attempt at sarcasm.' :-)

fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:14 am

lol...You can't be serious, mate...lolololol...Yeah, the scientist's evidence vs. your own two eyes. Well...I went to China last year and didn't fall off the Earth. Guess those flat Earthers were right! X-D Hmmmm?

OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:10 am

Let me guess, a tornado? GW! a hurricane? GW! a blizzard? GW! so this cooler than usual weather must be GW, right? isn't that what the consensus is?

OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:07 am

We're told 2014 was the h**test year on record, yet when I'm usually experiencing several days in the 100s, we had 1, maybe 2 days in '14. & for the 2nd yr in a row its almost May but instead of the normal 90s we are barely hitting the 80 degree mark

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 10:01 pm

So please, mate, call me a "denier." In fact, I will be disappointed in you if you don't. Yes, I'm the biggest JUNK SCIENCE DENIER around. ;-) If in your game of pigeon chess that represents Check mate, then it's a game I'm PROUD to lose. #WINNINGBYLOSING

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:57 pm

But basically you say any interpretation of science you present is BEING DENIED if we disagree with it. Fair enough. I'm a JUNK SCIENCE DENIER. I see your junk science and raise you 10000+ peer reviewed studies and the 97-99% consensus that backs it.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:56 pm

It's point (B) you are refuting. Now with your debunked cosmic ray nonsense. The effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation has been shown to be dubious. GCRs exert a very tiny influence over low-level cloud cover, not enough to account for sh*t.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:53 pm

But the reason WE KNOW man-made CO2 is causing GW now is because (A) CO2 in theory CAN cause CC (a point you've conceded) and (B) thousands of investigations by reputable scientists and have found the correlation in a myriad of ways that is unequivocal.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:52 pm

Just because man-made CO2 or cosmic rays COULD cause climate change, doesn't mean all climate change is caused by CO2 and cosmic rays. See what I did there? I included CO2 as well.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:50 pm

Sure...if all this happened, it could cause global warming. But there is ZERO evidence that any of this happened. And by pushing it, you are engaging in a causal fallacy. ie.Just because Socrates is a man, doesn't mean all men are Socrates.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:49 pm

In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must induce aerosol formation which THEN must grow sufficiently through the condensation of gas in our atmosphere to form cloud-condensation nuclei. Then his must lead to increased cloud formation.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:47 pm

FACT- Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the 1950s, and has shown ZERO-ZILCH-NADA significant trends over that period. FACT - our global solar magnetic field also has NOT changed appreciably over the past thirty years.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:45 pm

However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals that Henrik proposed are occurring in reality. For instance, a nuclear winter COULD create global cooling. But that doesn't mean nukes caused the ice age.lol.. What matters is the PRESENT causes NOW

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:39 pm

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field COULD deflect cosmic rays, which hypothetically seeds low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing GW.That's his hypothesis.But is that ACTUALLY happening? Is it the reality now?

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:36 pm

In fact, it's funny, but you are pretty much just copying and pasting what Henrik is saying. I know. I checked. Again, here is the refutation mate--->

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:34 pm

You're simply posting something without demonstrating comprehension of the concepts involved.I gave you the methodology to verify your claims.You ignored it and simply repeated an empirically disproven concept.In other words,you're talking out of your a$s

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:31 pm

Mother nature is not denying the science. You are, denier. There are 4 requirements that must be true for his theory to be valid. They failed to produce results when tested repeatedly against empirical variables. And you are not replying to that.

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:28 pm

And that didn't reply at all to the evidence I cited. Just more pigeon chess from you. Yes, you are good at the copy and paste function, mate. Now apply that same vigor to actually learning the science you deny. :-) You might learn something

OTC - April 23, 2015, 9:02 pm

You understand his findinds that when the sun is active, as it has been, it shields us from cosmic rays reducing cloud cover which heats up the planet. with the sun becoming less active, more cosmic rays will produce more clouds

OTC - April 23, 2015, 8:55 pm

The sun is going into a grand minimum, temperatures have flatten recently and scientists are suggesting a cooling period. There's too much invested in the MMGW hype to accept a Global Cooling. Everyone can deny that science, but Mother Nature won't

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:21 pm

It turns out that none of these Hen'schypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect. This IS why he is ignored and why you don't know **** about MMCC.Cheers :-)

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:18 pm

In summary,studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover,solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades,nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.In fact,if GCRs did have a significant impact,cooling wouldve occurred

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:16 pm

3)Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.4)Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend. Fortunately climatology had empirical variables against which they tested these requirements. Study after indie study debunked Hen's theory

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:12 pm

In order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.1)Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.2)Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:09 pm

, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then." End quack quote. (2/2)

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:07 pm

Henrik Svensmark says -- It's cosmic rays! The quack says,
"When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover,(1/2)

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:05 pm

who also say radiation is proof of Jesus's resurrection because they claim it explains away the carbon dating which shows the Shroud of Turin to have originated a few hundred years ago, not 2000 yrs ago. Junk science is real neat, huh? (2/2)

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:01 pm

He IS ignored because he was proven wrong. PERIOD. He blames everything and I mean EVERYTHING on cosmic rays, including evolution. Congrats! You know how to use Google, mate. ;-) While you at it there you'll find these Russian "scientists" too (1/2)

OTC - April 23, 2015, 5:09 pm

Like Henrik Svensmark who gets ignored because his research didn't coincide with the consensus

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:20 pm

Even so, Michael Crichton's opinion on this means about as much to the CC debate as Steven Spielberg's opinion. ie.Not very much. A poster like this plainly proves the deniers are simply trolling science. It is proof of nothing. 1 Lion

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:18 pm

We are discussing 10000+ studies, reproducible results, in what is called PEER-REVIEW. The consensus vernacular is plainly the "CC for Dummies" explanation for that.It is not meant as a substitute for hard science, which already exists for MMCC(2/2)

fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:14 pm

Michael Crichton, who is the author of this quote, never did a study on climate change. Nor was he a climatologist. The part you missed, though, was where he says: "what is relevant is reproducible results." Every major CC study has been reproduced(1/2)

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 4:49 pm

What's the Washington post have to do with anything? Im just teasing you for replying to yourself in a post like Norman Bates. You even quoted yourself, schizoboy. http://www.politifake.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9611&start=80#p138776

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 4:46 pm

the washington post? What's the problem with that? Oh, they don't do the chicken little thing. Now I understand. You would much rather use the Comedy channel, right?

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 4:44 pm

I think you should change your avatar to the sky falling and your name here to chicken little. It would be much more apropo

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 4:42 pm

Like talking to yourself, conspiracy boy? Oh, that's right, you do. http://www.politifake.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9611&start=80#p138776 I will consider the source on this one. Your tinfoil hat is cutting off O2 from your brain again. x-D FTW

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 4:19 pm

You read and quote from the comedy channel ... so you tell me manmade climate conspiracy boy.

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 3:06 pm

You read and quote from the UK Daily Mail...so you tell me, conspiracy boy. Normally, this is where I'd say, you need to calm down and smoke one out but then again you probably read from there that pot will melt your brain. So never mind. X-D

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 2:58 pm

So, tell me, faux, did your education in britain entail nothing other than conspiracy sites and reading National Enquirer for your study materials?

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 2:55 pm

*yawn* If you did have classes in science, then either you failed out or you are living proof that the American education system has failed. Nah, keep those tissues. Sounds like you still need it. I'd cry too if I had your report card. X-D

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 2:49 pm

At least I had classes in science. You just spout what your favorite conspiracy magazine headlines. Reality is just a word to you, not an actual occurrence. Did you already go thru all of those tissues that were donated to you?

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 2:18 pm

Nah, because you don't believe in FACTS. You define facts as anything you choose to believe in. FACT: 97-99% according to verified public record. We already know you get an F in science. Now you can make a complete set with your F+ in reality. X-D FTW

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 2:01 pm

97-99% in your mind, maybe. Nutty scientists are the ones that you are on board with. FACTS just destroy your manmade bs.

fauxnews - July 13, 2014, 1:03 pm

*slapping knee* I know,right? It's only a 97-99% consensus. Check this out...they also think the world's round. Yeah,right! That means people in China would be standing upside down.Nutty scientists and their liberal FACTS.God made the world flat. X-D

EmmaRoydes - July 13, 2014, 1:02 am

Unanimous? bwahahahahaha

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS - Run around screaming before you check the facts and you'll get burned every tiem.

AL GORE - Somehow, he managed to succeed in making conservative Republicans care about science to a certain......degree.

THERE IS MORE PROOF FOR GLOBAL WARMING... - ...THAN THERE IS THAT JESUS (OR ANY MAN) COULD WALK ON WATER! [Don't let superstitious Republicans who believe in a zombie Jesus tell you what's scientifically accurate.]

Bottom line, the data was fudged. Lies Lies and d***ed lies.

FACTS BE DAMNED - Global warming exists 'cuz somewhere there is a pic of a polar bear looking sad and depressed.

2010 - NASA'S WARMEST YEAR EVER - Only by extensive data cherry-picking and manipulation. Apparently the calendars of Dr. James "Death Train" Hansen and his merry band of Druids don't go back very far.

anwar awalaki, and his son. it doesnt matter that they were terrorists. they were american citizens, and they got no trial whatsoever. the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

PapaFox - March 16, 2013, 11:24 am

Renza - March 16, 2013, 10:38 am

Who has he a**assinated? especially considering he'd just have someone else do it for him. everyone knows the secret service offers the presidents 3 secret murders per term.

Cannabal - March 16, 2013, 8:09 am

I thought liberals were supposed to have a sense of humor.

terroraustralis - March 16, 2013, 12:28 am

i didnt say he was a nutjob for making fun of chemtrail loons. i said it makes him a hypocrite, because he beleives things that are equally stupid, like "obama is a socialist", rather than just a bad president who a**asinates US citizens illegally.

Renza - March 15, 2013, 7:42 am

People can go on about chemtrails/contrails all they want, but we should be way more concerned about entrails, turns out they've found a way into all animals on the planet! Deer trails too... they're trying to make an infrastructure!

Renza - March 15, 2013, 7:40 am

I hate contrails because the pilots suck at drawing in the sky, it's just a bunch of crappy white lines on a blue background >.

Cannabal - March 14, 2013, 9:32 am

I'm about the most reasonable nutjob you'll ever talk to,
man.

PapaFox - March 14, 2013, 7:43 am

I doubt he's a nutjob for making fun of chemtrail conspiracy loons.

terroraustralis - March 14, 2013, 7:32 am

if you consider cannabal to be a nutjob, and think that you yourself arent, then you're a hypocrite

terroraustralis - March 14, 2013, 7:30 am

we're all conspiracy theorists, to a degree. some people hate obama, some people hate republicans, some people hate contrails, i hate the bipartisan fraud being perpetuated by the ignorance of the average american voter.

PapaFox - March 14, 2013, 7:29 am

It never ceases to amaze me what people choose to be paranoid about.

JGalt - March 14, 2013, 6:36 am

funny story- a guy who's convinced that contrails are poison- I said its moisture- he said "moisture evaporates" and I said: "you mean like clouds do?" LOL

GLOBAL WARMING ! - Children won't know what snow is ! Meanwhile we all know what it is !

bump

scientists agree -

science consensus -

Curlyrocks - July 11, 2014, 12:54 pm

I think with all the drugs people flush down the toilet mother nature has gotten more than a handful of midol and some stronger s**t. In fact I think she's probably trippen on all the over prescribed pain meds.

EmmaRoydes - July 11, 2014, 11:47 am

I think Mother Nature is suffering from PMS. Nothing a handful of Midol won't fix.

OTC - July 11, 2014, 1:24 am

Why is it so out of the question that the earth is just going through a natural cycle?

Zeitguy - June 27, 2014, 12:39 am

My mistake.

EmmaRoydes - June 26, 2014, 6:26 pm

I didn't say Nazi, I said Nazis :)

Zeitguy - June 26, 2014, 4:54 pm

What about abusing the word Nazi.

EmmaRoydes - June 26, 2014, 1:50 pm

Maybe it's because GW Nazis keep abusing the word significant.

Zeitguy - June 26, 2014, 1:11 am

Why is it so out of the question that human activity can play a significant role in adversely affecting the immediate environment?

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 23, 2014, 9:53 pm

Yet I somehow make it worse......

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 23, 2014, 9:51 pm

Don't I look silly now that the trou
Don't I look silly now that the troublemakers comments have been deleted.....I should learn to take my own advice.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 23, 2014, 5:15 pm

So, you're done now?

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 23, 2014, 5:07 pm

Calm down Emma. Try the strawberry rhubarb.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 23, 2014, 4:08 pm

I like blueberry pie the best, but I wouldn't say no to lemon meringue.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 22, 2014, 11:20 pm

So........ No?

Mooooooooooooooooooo - November 22, 2014, 9:37 pm

I take it you don't plan to be mature about this?

OTC - November 5, 2014, 7:52 pm

We're still waiting to see Al Gore's scientific credentials

crankyhead - November 3, 2014, 5:24 pm

Mooo, not to b*** in, but, I for one can't wait to see how he twists this to try to blame his own behaviour on you or me or someone else.

crankyhead - November 3, 2014, 5:22 pm

… to refute the 'facts' as he's presented them, there actually have to be some 'facts' presented. Y'know, logic?

crankyhead - November 3, 2014, 5:21 pm

Oh, he's a meteorologist is he? Perhaps you'd like to kindly tell us which institution gave him his degree? Also, still waiting for you to point out the SCIENTIFIC research he supposedly did, to support his UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion. Ergo; in order...

Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 31, 2014, 8:56 pm

It was only a week long ban. You could have just toughed it out and come back. I'm glad we get to see this side of you though, it's a far cry from all of those pm's you've sent me trying to be my pal and kissing my a**.

crankyhead - October 31, 2014, 2:09 pm

www.thecanadaguide.com? That's the infallible evidence you're using to support your fallacy of composition, is it? Some 30 year old Vancouverite who has self admittedly never left the province is able to tell you what the fine folks of Newfoundland….

crankyhead - October 31, 2014, 2:07 pm

…research, I'm sure everyone in the world will be happy to look over his proofs.

crankyhead - October 31, 2014, 2:07 pm

Hate to break it to ya, but John Coleman is a journalist, not a scientist. Let alone a 'top scientist', or even a "worlds top meteorological scientist', whatever it is you think that is. If you'd like to disagree, please just point out some of his….

Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 30, 2014, 11:58 pm

Still Prime Minister champ. What else you got? What title did she hold before she became Prime Minister? Are you going to tell us she was the maid? pure ignorance.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 30, 2014, 10:27 pm

Kim Campbell was Canada's first Female prime Minister. 20 years ago......You are ignorant. We have many female and aboriginal leaders. Get your facts straight....again.

OTC - October 30, 2014, 7:23 pm

So you're saying that GOP obstructionism is based on racism?

OTC - October 30, 2014, 7:27 am

I was pointing out the stupid BS made by researchers who made the claim, like Al Gore's stupid BS about the ice caps melting by 2014

OTC - October 30, 2014, 7:19 am

Why bother? Because i think it's funny how there are plenty of stories how man made global warming is responsible for super hurricanes and they will be the new norm, and TA's attack on me seems to suggest i made those claims, so how can i take him serious

OTC - October 28, 2014, 11:23 am

And that, TA, is what the poster is referring to (roll eyes)

OTC - September 17, 2014, 9:45 pm

"the dogs of doom are howling more"

EmmaRoydes - September 16, 2014, 2:17 pm

well, otc, looks like it's your turn to be attacked by the big bad scientist. Careful, his attack dogs are usually right behind him and I think they have rabies.

OTC - September 16, 2014, 12:06 pm

You're confused, you've been talking about Global Warming which i don't deny, I'm making fun of 'Man-Made' Global Warming, which i do deny. Totally different subjects.

terroraustralis - September 12, 2014, 5:53 pm

"sarcastic" eh? so you're saying you arent a climate change denialist? because i dont see a single godd*** shred of sarcasm, i think you made it seriously, and now you're backpedalling because you realise how incredibly dumb it is.

OTC - September 11, 2014, 2:12 pm

wow, all this for you to justify this sarcastic poster about M-MGW and more severe hurricanes.

terroraustralis - September 10, 2014, 5:10 pm

and it pisses me off when people claim these hurricanes are proof of global warming, because they're just clouding the debate with even more unscientific bull****. being right for the wrong reasons is just as bad as being wrong.

terroraustralis - September 10, 2014, 4:59 pm

exactly. the confusion comes from the prediction that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes and allow them to appear further north, hurricane(s) katrina and sandy are antecdotal evidence of this, they dont prove or disprove anything.

EmmaRoydes - September 9, 2014, 2:39 pm

right on the money curly

Curlyrocks - September 9, 2014, 1:11 pm

A better a***ogy: a lack of any big hurricane in a year disproves GW is like saying a big hurricane would prove global warming. Hurricanes happen in the caribbean, it's the climate down there.

terroraustralis - September 9, 2014, 3:47 am

saying that the lack of a big hurricane in one year disproves global warming is like saying that the rise in government jobs proves that obama is fixing the economy.

terroraustralis - September 9, 2014, 3:45 am

the lack of big hurricanes in any one year does not prove global warming doesnt exist. my comment was intentionally wrong and stupid, to give you an idea of how wrong and stupid your poster looks to us. seriously, look at the comment directly below this.

OTC - September 8, 2014, 3:34 pm

Get your facts straight, Obama is NOT getting rid of ALL the jobs, just the private sector ones. I have a government job.

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 11:56 pm

Emma, who is your "doodoo heads" reply directed at?

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 9:46 pm

after all, you are an admitted flaming liberal

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 9:45 pm

speaking of doo doo heads, what do you do for a living besides welch off of other people's hard work and income?

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 9:44 pm

You mean like the MTU definition: Computer science is a discipline that spans theory and practice. I don't deal in computer theory, I deal exclusively in hands on networking and programming.

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 9:13 pm

You could always look up the definition of 'computer scientist' if you've got some issue with what I said. Before you do that though, you should alert your neighbors that you'll be flying into fit of rage, and that they shouldn't worry.

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 9:10 pm

Considering that we were discussing your pot/kettle attitude, I think it's obvious that my 5 minutes of research did in fact, produce something useful, on-topic and sensible. No surprise to anyone that you disagree. #boohoomoments

Mooooooooooooooooooo - September 2, 2014, 3:56 pm

You guys are boring. Why don't you talk about politics instead of arguing over who's the bigger doo doo head?

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 3:43 pm

Sure, cranky, just like someone who has a baccalaureate in art is an artist, right?

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 3:20 pm

might even come up with something useful, on-topic, or sensible for a change. Pretty doubtful that you could pull that off though.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 3:19 pm

I reply in kind to people like you who attack me. You just like to attack without provocation. Hence the stupidity you are exhibiting in this conversation. You should try to focus a little, take a moment, and think before you respond to comments. You

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 1:57 pm

Emma, people with degrees in computer science, are called 'computer scientists'. Just so's ya know, child.

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 1:56 pm

Yeah, we all see what you do, and as we've just established, ever since your "very first comment" on this site, you attack other members, and call them names and then cry like a stuck pig whenever someone dares to hold you to your own standards.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 1:40 pm

Nope, I said that I have a baccalaureate in computer science. I never claimed to be be a scientist of any kind. Do I need to explain the difference to you?

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 1:37 pm

All righty then. My comment where I referred to you as skippy happened in September, and you used it in your argument about when I first got here. Now do you see what I did there?

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 1:08 pm

Speaking of hallucinations, didn't you claim to be a computer scientist, around two week ago Emma?

crankyhead - September 2, 2014, 1:01 pm

Apparently, I understand calendars better than you do, Emma.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:29 am

rein in that ego. Life can suck when you think the internet is all about you or everyone is stupid compared to you, Einstein (or is that Epstein?)

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:28 am

waaaaah! my reputation with you is permanently ruined. How will I ever live with myself. I've never claimed to be a scientist, but if that's your most recent hallucination, go with it, it suits you just fine. In the meantime, stop trolling me and try to

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:27 am

avoid politics. It's not for the feint of heart.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:26 am

when did you hallucinations begin to think that I have an anti-science avatar? Why would I change it to annoy you? Your ego gets in the way of being a contributing member of this site by taking everything here as if it was directed at you. Toughen up or

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:25 am

just go to hell.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:24 am

I'm glad it annoys you even if it isn't true. I post . whenever the desire to post a comment strikes me. You want me to stop, become a mod, then you can be the egotistical a**hole that you play so well and you can decide who you want to post. Otherwise,

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:21 am

I didn't say I knew you were being sarcastic, I said you were being an a**hole. I've never pretended that I was you friend. It's not something I desire nor am I foolish enough to think the internet is my real life.

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 11:20 am

I didn't notice that you were a mod now. If memory serves me correctly, they are the only ones that can tell me whether or where I can post. Besides, THIS ISN'T EVEN YOUR POSTER, so WHY POST COMMENTS AT ALL?

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:52 am

And there is a reason I chose the words CONFIRMATION BIAS with you. you, i, and pretty much everyone else here knows that reason. So you can stop pretending to be stupid about that as well.

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:46 am

your reputation is permanently ruined with me. The only thing more laughable than you being a scientist is watching you pretend to be civil or my friend. I dont respect you, i despise you. Why? You're insincere AND proud of your confirmation bias

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:45 am

you even changed your avatar into an anti-science nutter one because you thought it would annoy me. troll much? so stop playing stupid. no one with integrity here is buying it. that's why only YOU believe in your own BS. i don't speak troll, only you do

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:45 am

and before you say "hurr durr,Im not a troll",you confessed to trolling when you said "But I now know that my posting caused your panties to get in a bunch, so I'll refrain from responding to any further responses you make" like all trolls,you're bragging

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:44 am

so now you're just following me around, harassing me in the way that has worked for you in the past. ill admit, it IS really, really, REALLY annoying, but you're not gonna provoke me into an outburst that will get me banned. your plan wont work.

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:44 am

You said you knew I was being sarcastic. Just like the way you know you were being phony by pretending to be civil and by pretending you were ever my friend. You are neither. Now you know this too. So commit it to memory OR at least admit you're trolling

terroraustralis - September 2, 2014, 10:43 am

then WHY REPLY AT ALL??? THIS ISNT EVEN YOUR POSTER. i wasn't talking to you. you know i dont care for your anti-science nutter views. so the only reason for you to say ANYTHING is because (a) you want to troll me or (b) you're pretending to be my friend

EmmaRoydes - September 2, 2014, 12:17 am

I take you don't know what month it is. It's ok, cranky, nobody expects you to understand calendars.

crankyhead - September 1, 2014, 9:31 pm

September? What? #usemilkonyourcheeriosinsteadofwhiskey

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 7:57 pm

To me, your postings sound like sour gra**s. Did you get banned from the site? Did it make you cry? Do you miss the site? Do you miss me?

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 7:54 pm

Not that it's of any concern of yours, but I chose the name because I found it amusing. If you don't find it amusing, to quote your God, "sue me"

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 7:40 pm

I guess you have no sense of time, right? Which comes first, now think hard, April or September? tick tock

crankyhead - September 1, 2014, 6:04 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

crankyhead - September 1, 2014, 5:35 pm

I guess 'Skippy' is a term of endearment now? =) #hooklineandsinker

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 5:34 pm

Pretty abrasive isn't it?

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 5:34 pm

The earliest post of mine that I could find was on April 19 where I said "Holy Crap! A Squirrel" http://www.politifake.org/globalcomments.php?p=65388

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 5:16 pm

Tell me, skippy, what was my very first post on this site?

crankyhead - September 1, 2014, 5:05 pm

Not willing to be held to her own standard, Emma posts this absolute gem of a retort, completely forgetting all about the tone and direction of her own "very first posting" on this website. #pot/kettle

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 2:00 pm

and as far as Julie goes, her very first posting on this site was attacking me. So your love for her and sorrow at seeing her go is totally lost on me anyway. Sounds like a "boo hoo" moment to me.

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 1:45 pm

But I now know that my posting caused your panties to get all bunched up, so I will refrain from responding to any further smart a** comments that you make. Bueno?

EmmaRoydes - September 1, 2014, 1:44 pm

I wasn't trying to initiate a discussion with you, nor do I wish to have you respect my views. I merely put it out there in response to a smart a** statement that you posted, nothing more, nothing less.

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 12:41 pm

i didnt realise it at the time, but julie really took a bullet for me. the way you baited her let me see just how insidious and manipulative you really are. you're probably the most skilled troll i've ever had the misfortune of coming in contact with.

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 12:36 pm

its like you're meticulously researched exactly what pisses me off the most, and figured out how to apply it perfectly... i should applaud you, its not often that trollbait fails by being too good...

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 12:34 pm

to put it more bluntly, i've never seen an argument so perfectly designed to make me explode. you wont trick me into swearing or insulting you, but you're doing too good of a job at rubbing me the wrong way, to not be trolling.

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 12:24 pm

how am i supposed to believe that you want a serious discussion when you keep acting like this whole thing is a big joke? i've seen you form coherent arguments before, and yet you refuse to use a coherent argument with me.

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 12:14 pm

you civil and try to initiate a discussion, and then you bring this to the table? thats like showing up to a barbecue with a tofu turkey and alcohol-free beer. how am i supposed to respect your views when you cite articles that oppose your argument?

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 11:58 am

what has me even more confused is the fact that you're citing an article that is in favour of the idea of manmade climate change. you dont believe a word these people say, and yet you're telling me to trust them?

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 11:49 am

it even states "It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.", you're doing a good job of refuting the poster.

terroraustralis - September 1, 2014, 11:44 am

strange, it doesnt say anywhere that not having a hurricane in any one year means that global warming isnt real... it just says that global warming will increase the frequency of strong hurricanes.

EmmaRoydes - August 31, 2014, 8:58 am

Sorry, that should have been *according to NOAA...

EmmaRoydes - August 31, 2014, 8:56 am

According to NASA: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

terroraustralis - August 31, 2014, 4:28 am

what do hurricanes have to do with global warming?

EmmaRoydes - August 30, 2014, 9:59 am

What does this poster have to do with the number of jobs?

terroraustralis - August 30, 2014, 1:11 am

to clarify, i dont like obama, and i dont like stupid bull****, and the notion that anyone has ever said "global warming means big hurricanes every year" is some REALLY stupid bull****.

Unsure of your point. The nature of scientific process evolves as additional factors and evidence is revealed without prejudgment. Your posters exhibit the opposite approach.

Global warming -

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 2:01 am

One doesn't talk 'to' strawmen fox. One talks 'about' strawmen. That's why people like you use the tactic so much. It's a way of avoiding having to actually have a discussion. But you already knew that, didn't you?

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:59 am

Awwwww... crankypants is fishing for attention. Nice to have someone to talk to huh, cranks? Instead of all the strawmen that you are used to talking too

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:56 am

Nope, still talking to you.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:53 am

So you're talking to yourself now, crankypants?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:51 am

Strawman much?

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:51 am

Answer the the question? If someone disagrees with your god Obama, why is it all about skin color? But you put a black man in white face and you are being a tolerant liberal. Why are you being a typical liberal hypocrite, crankypants?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:43 am

I already answered the question, fox. A couple of times. Why do you keep bringing up skin colour?

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:41 am

Why are you desperately trying to squirm away from answering the question? If someone disagrees with your god Obama, it's all about skin color. But you put a black man in white face and you are being a tolerant liberal

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:36 am

Why are you changing the subject to Obama?

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:35 am

Oh, but if someone disagrees with your god Obama, it's all about skin color. So, using your own logic, why are you lying and why are you being a racist bigot by representing yourself with a racist and bigotted picture of a black man in white face?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:29 am

Didn't I just tell you that it has nothing to do with his skin colour? Focus.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:26 am

Oh, riiiiiiiight! No racism there! Now, tell everyone why you, the self proclaimed representative of liberal tolerance and civil liberty, chooses to represent himself with the typical Democrat racist and bigoted image of a black man in white face

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:20 am

Putting Allen West in clown paint has nothing to do with his skin colour. For the millionth time.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:17 am

And while you are at it, crankypants. Tell everyone why you, the self proclaimed representative of liberal tolerance and civil liberty, chooses to represent himself with the typical Democrat racist and bigoted image of a black man in white face

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:16 am

I was responding to your comment fox. If you scroll up, you'll see it. Or scroll down, depending on which page you're on.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:14 am

gain, crankypants. Focus. If you are not desperately trying to change the subject, then tell us: What does the the Democrat birther talking point have to do with this poster, hmmmm?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:12 am

I was responding to your comment, fox. It's all written down, shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:11 am

So, crankypants. If you are not desperately trying to change the subject, then tell us: What does the the Democrat birther talking point have to do with this poster, hmmmm?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:10 am

I've never changed my position on GW. Try again fox.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 1:09 am

crankypants is the guy that changes his position every time someone points out how ridiculous his original position is. Typical of liberals who are for something before they were against something and then for it again.

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 1:05 am

OTC, I was quoting fox. I'd be happy to keep talking about GW with you though, as soon as you're willing to acknowledge my position.

OTC - May 30, 2014, 1:02 am

The subject here changed from global warming to birth certification, why is that?

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 12:53 am

So, quoting something you said, is now construed as 'changing the subject'? Interesting.

foxrecon19d - May 30, 2014, 12:49 am

Typical change the subject response from a typical liberal bigot who put a black man in clown paint to represent himself

crankyhead - May 30, 2014, 12:01 am

To quote: "Typical of liberals who are for something before they were against something and then for it again....". You mean, like the birther movement? Is that what you mean?

foxrecon19d - May 29, 2014, 9:39 pm

uh, oh, cranks... add Emma to the long list of folks that knows how bent out of shape you get when someone uses your own liberal tactics against you

foxrecon19d - May 29, 2014, 9:36 pm

No, cranks. You're the guy that evolves his position every time someone points out how ridiculous your original position is. Typical of liberals who are for something before they were against something and then for it again.

EmmaRoydes - May 29, 2014, 6:55 pm

Your problem is that you read stuff into every posting on the site that you didn't post, then complain when someone uses your tactic against you. Hypocrite much?

crankyhead - May 29, 2014, 6:51 pm

I'm the guy who keeps having to restate his position all the time, and it has nothing to do with semantics.

EmmaRoydes - May 29, 2014, 6:49 pm

said the kettle

crankyhead - May 29, 2014, 4:16 pm

No, OTC, for the thousandth time, I am not. You're one of those 'I only hear what I want to hear, because it's a whole lot easier than paying attention' types though, aren't you? =)

OTC - May 29, 2014, 2:43 pm

A 2000 year old hippie walked on water? Well lake Superior still has ice despite air temps in the 80's, but are you sure it wasn't Bill Ayers or Hillary Clinton or some other aging hippie reject from the 60's? aging hippies look a lot older than they are

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 10:14 pm

Well...that explains why 'you' think it possible that a 2000 year old hippie could walk on water and rise from the dead... Gramps used to think he was chatting with Fred Astaire...Meh, ignorance is bliss, right? =) All that GW should soothe your arthritis

OTC - May 27, 2014, 10:04 pm

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 5:01 pm

Yup, you caught me, fair and square. What can I say? X-D But I didn't need to tell you that, because you already understand everything, right? =)

OTC - May 27, 2014, 4:42 pm

I found cranky's sock puppet

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 4:24 pm

How can climate change be possible when the world has only been around for a few thousand years according to the Bible? Everyone knows dinosaur bones are really dragon bones. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=623&article=762

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 4:20 pm

"How can people not believe in God but they believe a manmade global warming hoax." Yup,because it's more scientifically plausible to believe in a 2000 year old hippie zombie with superpowers who can walk on water. Certainly more evidence for that than GW

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 4:17 pm

"Global warming? Yeah, right.... it snowed this year, like a lot... it was cold outside this morning... IN YOUR FACE, SCIENCE!" Yup, can't beat that thinking X-D

fauxnews - May 27, 2014, 4:16 pm

That's all 'you' OTC.... you're the guy who thinks that the world is flat even when science shows you otherwise. "Well, if it's round, then how come I don't fall off when I walk down the street? Sure looks flat to me..." Yup, can't beat that thinking X-D

OTC - May 27, 2014, 2:21 pm

cranky, how do you know a rise in temperature isn't causing the rise in CO2?

OTC - May 27, 2014, 2:17 pm

cranky, you're one of those Natural Earth Cycle deniers, aren't you?

OTC - May 27, 2014, 1:10 pm

I see a slow, steady rise in CO2 and a irrational fluxuation in temputures

fauxnews - May 25, 2014, 11:40 am

I know... and your forgot..."*HONK!*"

crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 11:36 am

Uh.... it's just a ph**o. =)

fauxnews - May 25, 2014, 11:33 am

Dude...I hear Allen West's snide voice in each of your comments...then the stupid makeup...makes me want to find West, dress him like a clown, then punch him in the face every time you post......Arrrrrrrgh!!!! What ever happened to happy smiley Cranky?

crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 11:20 am

Yeah, I see the humor. Do you see how ironic it is that you accidentally showed the correlation between increased levels of CO2, and the very real phenomenon of global warming?

OTC - May 25, 2014, 10:38 am

You do understand the poster is a joke, right?

crankyhead - May 25, 2014, 12:11 am

Actually, the only thing the postal line on the graph 'proves' is that inflation, like global warming, is also real. But I didn't need to tell you that, because you already understand everything, right? *HONK!*=)

OTC - May 24, 2014, 11:54 pm

That graph also proves CO2 causes postal rates to increase. My favorite part about you cranky is your not understanding what you think you understand

foxrecon19d - May 24, 2014, 11:38 pm

Uh, oh. Crankyhead the hypocrite is breathing again, thereby increasing the CO2 levels. Breathing liberals, the cause of global warming. Join the petition to force them to hold their bresth until the earth heals itself

crankyhead - May 24, 2014, 2:33 pm

...graph with us, that clearly demonstrates a correlation between increased levels of CO2, and global temperatures, and still pretend like it's not happening. =)

crankyhead - May 24, 2014, 2:32 pm

You know what my favorite thing about you is OTC? We've just spent, I dunno, at least a week discussing the effects of CO2 and how it increases global temperatures. The whole time you've been arguing that it isn't happening. Then today, you share a...

Remember when? -

global warming b/s -

SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS - 2300 years after Aristotle wrote this classic, a D science student still needs the argumentum ad populum and other logical fallacies to push the dead horse of man-made global warming. Because the data isn't there.

And scientists are being given two years to study why an insecticide now banned in the EU is killing off all the bees here? Junk Science...Don't you dare have thoughts contrary to the Gov't!

Curlyrocks - May 9, 2013, 10:00 pm

Couldn't have said it better myself. 5L

Climate Change Garbage -

PeteofSanJose - January 30, 2014, 1:34 am

I remember in grade school being told that at one time North America, it was covered by glacier ice. THEN we had global warming and the ice retreated. It formed the Grand Canyon. It's called a natural cycle. Happened before and will again

PeteofSanJose - January 30, 2014, 1:32 am

Thats funny right there, I dont care who you are!!!

OTC - January 29, 2014, 6:03 pm

Curlyrocks - January 29, 2014, 1:47 pm

Oh yeah all planets climates are changing all the time. There may have been a layer of ice or frost at one point but like dry ice on earth it would instantly evaporate when warmed and be carried by the winds to re-solidify at the coldest part, the poles.

PeteofSanJose - January 29, 2014, 12:16 pm

the report I listened to was about the ROVER discovering water from eons ago. Scientist did not say what "type" of water or how long ago, just that it was there. And now it is not. so the conclusion was, global change of some sort at some time.

Curlyrocks - January 29, 2014, 9:47 am

I don't think there ever was liquid water on Mars. The atmosphere on Mars is too thin to support liquid water, becasue Mars only has 1/3 earths gravity. Unless Mars used to be bigger and support a thicker atmosphere liquid water only exists under ground.

trapped in Antartica -

fauxnews - January 9, 2014, 2:57 pm

Oh,you know Im not avoiding the question,Arnnatz. I proved 'that' many posts ago and on several occasions. Playing dumb might suit you well, ironically,for reasons other than your intention.However,it doesn't hide that it's enough you and I know the truth

OTC - January 9, 2014, 12:22 pm

Avoiding the question, shouldn't you be logged into your cranky account for that?

fauxnews - January 8, 2014, 10:37 pm

You're funny, Arnnatz. Pathological to a fault. And always a great source of amusement. You're a terrible liar..lolololol..

OTC - January 8, 2014, 12:37 pm

At least we agree that liberals don't have 'real' jobs, they leech off of the working class. BTW, can you prove I have multiple accounts, or are you just slandering as liberals do?

fauxnews - January 7, 2014, 1:49 am

Nah,OTC/Arnnatz, they're honorable people with 'real' jobs who have a life. They're not,you know, someone like 'you',a pathetic fail troll w/multiple accts who chronically trolls internet forums for a living because he's jealous of others with a real life

OTC - January 6, 2014, 11:51 pm

Are these the global warming idiots who thought the ice was melted and went to prove it? How much money did they cost us?

JGalt - January 5, 2014, 11:55 pm

we thinks you posted to the wrong thread. Thanks for playing.

fauxnews - January 5, 2014, 11:38 pm

fauxnews - January 5, 2014, 11:37 pm

why not just own up to it? You would earn respect rather than dig yourself a bigger hole. You are being a conscienceless pathetic jerk. The more you defend yourself, the bigger the fool you are.It's conservatives like you that give the brand a bad name...

JGalt - January 5, 2014, 10:39 pm

in anyone's eyes or voice.

JGalt - January 5, 2014, 10:39 pm

so are we not supposed to watch and laugh at TV comedies because those people could get hurt on the job too and they are risking their lives filming comedies for us? love the convoluted logic there buddy. Again- the singing video- not a lot of terror

Curlyrocks - January 5, 2014, 8:44 pm

The news makes it out that the passengers where more sad to leave than terrified. And the crew of any ice breaker is ready to be stuck in the ice at any given time and so I don't think either crew is too worried. But good to know sealers can count on you.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - January 5, 2014, 8:26 pm

Human life is human life, regardless of the outcome or who was involved this experience would have been terrifying for the people stuck out there and their families.

Curlyrocks - January 5, 2014, 8:08 pm

Something tells me that if it was sealers or whalers trapped in the ice they wouldn't receive this out pouring of sympathy and support.

JGalt - January 5, 2014, 12:47 am

Next time read the news and be informed before you step out on such thin ice!

JGalt - January 5, 2014, 12:47 am

did you see the crew videos- they were singing and having a grand old time- hardly life at risk. The crew stayed behind because there was NO risk according to news reports! Shame on you for trying to make it as a crisis to shame us with...

Curlyrocks - January 5, 2014, 12:31 am

No ones in any danger, The crew of the 1st ship are staying behind on board, there's no danger of either ships hulls failing due to ice, people are just having a bad month because they meant to study the retreating ice and got caught in it.. so yeah ha ha

Mooooooooooooooooooo - January 4, 2014, 10:24 pm

If this is what you find funny, you should be on a different network. the Motinetwork is better than this...better than you.

Mooooooooooooooooooo - January 4, 2014, 10:22 pm

I've never seen such low class disgusting comments. Curly and JGalt, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you put your own political opinions over the lives of innocent human beings? Mostly you Curly...sick, just sick.

fauxnews - January 4, 2014, 3:05 pm

It's lame, isn't mate? For example: If one of Obama's kids randomly perished one day,how much you wanna bet these wankers would be making posters making fun of it here? That's how you can separate the men from the freaks.True patriots have heart, not hate

Cyberhagen - January 4, 2014, 1:16 pm

Okay, I agree with you guys, but loving the story and it getting better? There are people trapped there who could have died, so don't get too happy about it, it doesn't make you look good to be gloating when the primary thing is the rescue effort.

JGalt - January 4, 2014, 10:04 am

Curlyrocks - January 3, 2014, 9:05 pm

This just gets better and better, now the ship that went to rescue them, a Chinese ice breaker is also stuck in the ice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html

JGalt - December 31, 2013, 2:09 am

first in the 70's with rising C02 levels, scientists were predicting another ice age. THen it was Gore-bal warming, then climate change, Lets just call a spade a spade and call it weather!

Curlyrocks - December 30, 2013, 2:54 pm

I love this story, If you can't predict what the weather is going to do how can you be so sure it's doing it wrong, and that humans are the cause?

Wasn't long ago the top scientists thought the Earth was flat -

fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 2:00 pm

Bogus links to non-scientific sites promoting a mindset not shared by the majority of the scientific community and typically promoted by fools and people with something to gain from continuing destructive practices regarding resources. Sorry,not buying it

fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 1:55 pm

TA was making fun of you trying to compare the state of science in the distant past to that of modern science - in that sense, it's not the same. A lot has changed since then. The only thing dumber than that is the fact that I have to explain that to you.

OTC - March 11, 2015, 1:43 pm

You're wrong faux, scientists didn't exist back then. It must be true, see first comment by TA

EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 4:02 pm

The first one was from nsidc.org and the second one is from answers.com

EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:50 pm

Its average thickness is about 1.6 km. The deepest known ice rests 2,555 meters below sea level, where the ice is over 4 kilometers thick.

EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:49 pm

The ice cap that covers Antarctica is more than 2100 meters thick in places, more than two kilometers (1.3 miles). This is where most of the world's fresh water is contained. If it melted completely it would raise sea levels by 61 meters (200 feet).

EmmaRoydes - October 20, 2014, 3:40 pm

Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick.

OTC - October 20, 2014, 1:37 pm

Show me where i said CO2 isn't CO2 crank

crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:37 pm

Seeing as how ice forms on the surface of water, and not underneath it, and that volume is measured in three dimensions, whereas surface area is not, without accurately measuring the physical depth of the ice, what can we conclude about the data set?

crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:32 pm

No, actually, Emma put up a link that said the opposite of what SHE said it did. The rest of the conversation was just her trying to deflect the fact that she did it.

crankyhead - October 12, 2014, 1:30 pm

What are you referring to as false cause OTC? You're the guy promoting the 'CO2 isn't CO2' magical beans theory.

OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:16 pm

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

OTC - October 11, 2014, 1:09 pm

So ER put up a link that said the opposite of what you said before you said it, impressive

Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:27 pm

Last I checked the maximum decline of the ice in summer was getting better and better. Still won't tell you how thick the ice is though.

Curlyrocks - October 10, 2014, 9:24 pm

I meant to say "various sources of CO2 but ran out of room and figured it could go 1st. We only got 255 letters to make our comments so they can't be too long and sometimes important words get lost. It reminds me of back in the day when I was a kid and...

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:43 pm

Speaking of sea ice, care to take a guess what the data from NASA says about that?

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:38 pm

So, you're just going to ignore it then, I see. Good for you Emma.

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm

and we all know that sea ice comes from warming temperatures, right?

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:36 pm

and you could go to the arctic sea ice news and a***ysis site and see that this year set a record in the amount of sea ice

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:33 pm

then again, you could go to this link: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ and see that they admit there's a pause

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:32 pm

Are you planning on addressing the temperature data I pulled from NASA, or are you going to be predictable and just pretend it doesn't exist?

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:31 pm

Which is it Emma? Does the data from NASA agree with your claim, or does it disagree with your claim? I'm not sure you understand the optics of pretending it does one and then the other. Just saying.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:28 pm

How about looking at the first few graphs in that pdf ant realizing that they contradict your claim too?

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:27 pm

See the problem with NASA data yet?

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:26 pm

How about using the chart with just the title alone in this pdf: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/press_releases/lectures/Loeb_LaRC_Colloq.pdf

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:24 pm

You put up ONE link. I looked at it. I didn't say what you thought it said. I went and got a link from the same place that said the opposite of what you said. Can you see the problem with your logic yet?

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:23 pm

funny you should ignore the two pieces of information I put up, then whine about ignoring yours.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:22 pm

Curious to note that you still don't want to talk about the temperature data that I found over at the NASA website. Care to explain why not?

Dwydwyyr - October 10, 2014, 2:20 pm

So no evidence then. Whut?
There's no logic there, just (unsupported) belief since it is generally accepted that NASA stands behind the theory of man-made climate change. You cherry-picked post-hoc data. For a "flattened mouse" you are a big jacka$s. CWYL

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:13 pm

Let me guess… you're just going to ignore the proof from NASA I provided that actually shows the temperature, right? And then prance around claiming victory, all the while ignoring the glaring lacuna in your own logic?

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:11 pm

An intelligent person did figure it out, and that intelligent person is now trying to show you that the proof you provided doesn't support the claim you're making. *ahem*

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 2:10 pm

No, it doesn't, but if you look at the statement based on NASA data and the chart from NASA, an intelligent person could figure it out. Not that I'm accusing you of that.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:05 pm

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 2:03 pm

No, NASA is not in your b***. But your facts came from there. Your graph doesn't show a temperature correlation. When the 'fact' you're stating, isn't supported by the 'proof' you provide, one has to question your 'ability to understand the issue'.

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:58 pm

so I guess you are saying NASA is in my b***?

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:57 pm

CO2 Levels in a chart from NASA can be found at http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24_g-co2-l.jpg

EmmaRoydes - October 10, 2014, 1:55 pm

Citing the latest data from NOAA and NASA, Dr. David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and academic advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the 2013 global surface-temperature records from both entities show the “pause” in warming continues

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:08 pm

OK, OTC. In that case, seeing as how we're both alive right now, why don't you explain it to me. Seeing as how it's your theory and poor, simple me is having difficulty understanding it.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:07 pm

I don't know where you pull your 'facts' from Emma, but in the future, do us all a favour, and try somewhere other than "from your b***". Because those are definitely not the facts.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:05 pm

So yeah, 5L's for getting Emma to admit she doesn't have a basic comprehension of grade 10 chemistry either. No offence.

crankyhead - October 10, 2014, 1:04 pm

Curly, don't take this the wrong way, but there is no such thing as 'various CO2' Whether it comes out of a coal plant, a conservative, a cow or a car, CO2 looks and acts the same. Like this: O=C=O.

OTC - October 8, 2014, 10:37 pm

No they wouldn't be able to tell you because you weren't alive back then.

Dwydwyyr - October 8, 2014, 10:06 pm

Thank you "Emma" for helping me get elected. Could not have done it without you, skippy. Toasting you here in S****horpe as I type. TTFN

EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:50 pm

#cowardshidingbehindanonymity

EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:49 pm

why don't you grow a set and actually login instead of just using the posting routine to put your comments up? Afraid to be exposed for someone who was banned?

EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:47 pm

and that, cranky, is where everything goes haywire. The amount of CO2 in the last 20 years has been increasing, but the temperature hasn't been rising. Strange how facts work, eh?

EmmaRoydes - October 8, 2014, 9:45 pm

nice one curly! 5Ls for the comment!

Curlyrocks - October 8, 2014, 6:20 pm

I can't speak for the biospheres reaction to various CO2, but I can tell you that the scientists of that time didn't react to CO2 by panicking, blaming the rich, killing their industry. Good thing too or the Industrial revolution never would have happened

crankyhead - October 8, 2014, 3:48 pm

Hey OTC, do you think the scientists in 1492 would have been able to tell me how the biosphere knows enough to react to naturally occurring CO2, but not react to man made CO2? I mean, that really is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it?

EmmaRoydes - October 7, 2014, 9:58 am

Especially if you discount the importance of Nicolaus Copernicus and Georg von Peuerbach.

OTC - October 7, 2014, 9:00 am

Now ER, we've determined that the term 'scientists' didn't exist in 1492 so logically neither did people who studied science

EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:25 pm

EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm

scientists were really scarce.

EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:24 pm

the anemometer was invented in 1450, the Nürnberg Terrestrial Globe created during the years 1490-1492, England's first printing press in 1476, Da Vinci 1452-1519, did drawings of helicopter, parachute, submarine, centrifigal pump. Yeah, inventors and

EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:18 pm

EmmaRoydes - October 6, 2014, 6:16 pm

It also gets one threatened with physical violence

OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:22 am

I see, you "know" my I.Q. and how I am, and that's based on what, postings on the internet? Did you do any testing to get real data? Or do you just believe it because you don't like what I say? pseudoscience indeed

OTC - October 5, 2014, 9:11 am

Curly, it also gets you called a lot of names.

OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:14 am

TA says there were no scientists before 1600 and you say there were scientists in 1492, hmmm

OTC - October 5, 2014, 12:08 am

And you think I'm stupid? bwahahahaha

Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm

Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.

Curlyrocks - October 4, 2014, 11:31 pm

Exactly. 90% of those in the "scientific consensus" are just followers saying what they've been told or what will make them popular. Saying the earth is round used to get you burned at the stake but now saing GW isn't man made gets your funding stripped.

OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:23 pm

OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:19 pm

So science proved the earth was round yet the consensus in 1492 was that the earth was flat. Kinda like science proves the earth naturally heats up and cools down but the consensus is this cycle is man made

OTC - October 4, 2014, 6:15 pm

Must be that man made global warming thing. Oh wait! its Bush's fault, right?

Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:45 pm

OTC you are : "Other Than Correct".

Zeitguy - October 3, 2014, 11:42 pm

Curly you rock.

OTC - October 2, 2014, 5:33 pm

Scientific conscensious?

Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:07 am

The tropic of cancer, determined with shadows on the summer solstice that the distance between them would be 1/50th of 360 and paid a guy to count his steps as he walked from one to the other.

Curlyrocks - October 2, 2014, 11:04 am

Eratosthenes of Cyrene 276BC- 195BC was the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth and calculate the tilt of the earth's axis. He did all of it by measuring the angle of the sun in 2 different citys in Egypt the southern of which was on

OTC - October 2, 2014, 8:33 am

Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:50 am

OTC you're better than that!

Zeitguy - October 2, 2014, 12:49 am

Such a ridiculous premise. A blatant attempt to discredit scientific conscensious with ideological rhetoric. Meh.

terroraustralis - October 1, 2014, 2:45 pm

3000 years is actually a pretty long time... and "Scientists" didnt exist until the 1600's when the scientific method was first created, as a result of the controversy over galileo's imprisonment by the catholic church, because the evidence backed galileo